Quick question, why don't planes in the real world have missiles or weapons that can fire towards the rear?
The only time I've seen this idea be implemented is in Firebird (a prototype super-jet with rear mounted missiles) and arguably Star Wars in the Hoth battle.
I can only see it as aerodynamic and weight issues, is there a real reason?
[color=#FFFFFF]First, it can be used only in dogfight, in other words short range agile missiles, think the Sidewinder. However the sidewinder is a heat seeker. There isn't much heat to track in front of the aircraft don't you think?
Secondly it doesn't have unlimited fuel, and if it's launched backwards it will drop down with the same speed as the fighter hence its engine has to stop it from going forward with its arse first and then accelerate it towards the enemy plane. No to mention that it will pass through the jet wash if it engine activates close to the fighter
If it's fired backwards from a plane that's moving forwards then it will have negative velocity (relative) until the thruster can make it go. Basically you'd be dropping bricks and hoping the plane behind you flies into them.
Aye, short range it would only be used for, since long range, why not point at the enemy plane?
Regarding the counter for the plane's speed, that's a tough one. The missile would be even shorter ranged then. Not too effective. Maybe adding a secondary or primary mini-booster? For countering the jet wash, add an extra kick to the missile's detachment from the plane.
As for targeting, that's tricky, radar is too slow for dogfighting, and as you said, heat seeking is dodgy.
Let's say average plane speed in a dogfight is 300 mph (no idea what it is, just a number from my ass). If you shoot it forward and it can launch at 200 mph then the missile has cumulative velocity of 500 mph. If you drop it backwards, the cumulative velocity is -100 mph. Comprende
Hmm, it it then feasible to 'drop' a sort of static 'burst' weapon. Since as said the weapon would have near zero if any reverse acceleration to go towards the enemy plane, why not a weapon that 'sticks' in the relative area, and when an enemy plane enters its firing range. Boom.
' Wrote:Let's say average plane speed in a dogfight is 300 mph (no idea what it is, just a number from my ass). If you shoot it forward and it can launch at 200 mph then the missile has cumulative velocity of 500 mph. If you drop it backwards, the cumulative velocity is -100 mph. Comprende
Would the missile in fact go backward , what means forward , until it goes forward , that in fact is backward when the missile accelerates by burning it's fuel?
[color=#FFFFFF]A modern missile say the R-73 flies with something like mach 2.5. If you are flying with 900 km/h that means you are butchering its speed to something like mach 1.6. At close range say 200 meters, until that rocket stops and starts accelerating forward the enemy airplane would have passed it already, not to mention that the missile will lose a lot of altitude since it's a brick without huge speed or momentum. That said, the mentioned R-73 is renouned to be able to track at "impossible" angles say being launched at an aircraft at a 90 degrees angle, but if it's launched forward.
The only way for a missile to be fired "backwards" is if the fighter pops a Cobra, but then the airspeed is essentially 0 so the missile is still just accelerating
![[Image: 7220a57d19cexl1.jpg]](https://imageshack.us/a/img10/5332/7220a57d19cexl1.jpg)
![[Image: r3vange.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/r3vange.gif)
![[Image: smuggler-threat-0-1.jpg]](http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x57/UrsusMorologus/Freelancer%20Discovery/smuggler-threat-0-1.jpg)
![[Image: zElBwT7.png]](https://i.imgur.com/zElBwT7.png)
